Playing The Muslim Card: Dubai Ports World, Pt. 2

Note: I was going to put this up tomorrow morning, but I see no real reason to wait until then.

In response to the criticism I leveled at him in yesterday’s post (Playing The Muslim Card: Dubai Ports World), Duncan Black (Atrios) left the following comment:

To me the issue isn't that it's a foreign company or an Arab company, but a foreign state owned company.

State owned companies have different interests and pressure, potentially, than do private companies.
It's similar to objecting to having so much US debt being bought by "the Chinese." The issue isn't that Chinese people are buying hundreds of billions of t-bills, it's that the Chinese government is, and the Chinese government isn't a player motivated purely by economic incentives.

I don't want the French government having significant involvement in our port security either.

Fair enough.

The points Duncan raises are thoughtful and therefore deserve consideration in any discussion of the issue(s) at hand. They echo the thoughts and sentiments of a number of people who have emailed me today about the Dubai Ports World controversy.

I guess I would start by asking a simple question that no one, at least no one to my knowledge, has bothered to ask:

Is there really a direct correlation between the effectiveness of port security and either the nationality or the ownership of the company managing the port?

I ask that question because I think the obvious answer might not necessarily be the correct answer. Why are we to assume, sans concrete evidence, that our ports would be less secure under the management of a foreign-owned company that a domestic one. Is Senator Boxer prepared to argue that we would be safer, and our ports more secure, under the management and oversight of Halliburton? And will Senator Santorum’s concerns be satisfied upon learning that a company owned and operated by, say, the ex-wunderkind of FEMA, Michael Brown, is now overseeing the guarding our ports?

Am I arguing to extremes? Yes. But the point is obvious: We cannot assume that domestic control of the corporations managing our ports will provide security that meets or exceeds that provided by a foreign-owned company. At this moment there are exactly three pieces of information missing from the DPW debate in Congress and the blogosphere:

1) A working knowledge of the present security arrangements at the ports in question,
2) A working knowledge of any changes in security arrangements being contemplated by DPW, and,
3) Any knowledge of the review process used by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States to evaluate security concerns of the transferring the port management leases from P&O to DPW.

Without that information, the idea that we can appropriately evaluate any possible changes in the effectiveness of port security at any of the ports affected by the DPW purchase of P&O is absolute nonsense. The suggestion that domestic ownership would address, in any meaningful way, the fundamental issues of port security is a suggestion that obscures, rather an illuminates, the key point of the debate.

The second question I would ask is as follows:

Is it really true that state owned companies face different interests and pressures than private companies?

I would suggest that any private company owned and operated out of a country that lacks a tradition of the primacy of law and an independent judiciary is largely at the mercy of the government. Even in the United States, would one care to argue that pressure cannot be exerted on private companies via regulation, taxation or litigation to influence behavior? Look what that noted moral philosopher, Roger L. Simon, wishes the government to do with Google, Yahoo and Microsoft for transgressing the bounds of commercial propriety...

It would seem more to the point, at least to me, that our government and the regulatory and oversight bodies charged with the responsibility of ensuring port security have the resources and motivation to monitor the relationship of any foreign government with companies that do business in the United States in areas with potential national security consequences. There may be scenarios were it would be preferable to keep state-owned companies out of sectors of our economy, but to be meaningful in terms of protecting our security interests, it will take both knowledge and expertise to correctly identify which scenarios pose a potential security risk that is truly unacceptable.

Besides, as an accountant, I can tell you with confidence that it isn’t terribly difficult for governments (or individuals, for that matter) to conceal either their influence or ownership in a private company. Nor is it unheard of for a third party to represent themselves in order to hide true ownership interests. One need go no farther than the United Nations Oil-For-Food scandal to see either the mechanics of how such schemes work or how effective they can be.

I would suggest that the argument that state-owned and privately-owned companies offer, in and of them, differing potential security threats to be a false one. It seems to be a distinction without a difference. The only way to ensure that a particular government is not using its position in the U.S. economy to undermine our national security is to identify those portions of the economy that could present problems and to monitor them closely, irrespective of form or nationality of ownership.

Finally, irrespective of the merit of the arguments, neither the tone nor the tenor of the debate lends much credence to the proposition that this is about national security for most of those involved.

Given the level of ignorance of the basic facts, as well as the – how shall I say this – lack of appropriate focus of those driving the issue adds to the impression that the last thing the vast majority of those involving themselves in this controversy are truly concerned about is national security. In my humble opinion, the two necessary questions – the only two appropriate questions – that needed to be asked last week were the following:

1. What was the review process used by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States in evaluating the security implications of a purchase of Peninsular and Oriental by Dubai Ports World?
2. What the review process appropriate and adequate in evaluating all identifiable security concerns?

The answers to those two question would, quite frankly, render the concerns voiced by Duncan Black (and others) moot... Because the answers would either demonstrate an adequate review or otherwise. The answers to those two questions will tell us everything we need to know about the actors in this drama – the U.A.E. and the Bush Administration – and the state of security at our ports. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen anyone other than my own true self ask those two questions. So I have to ask myself just what is driving this controversy, if not a genuine concern for our nation’s welfare?

Senator Schumer first raised the issue without even possessing a level of knowledge allowing him to understand that Peninsular and Oriental was foreign owned and port security therefore already “outsourced”. In the blogosphere, “georgia10” over at Daily KOS claimed, bizarrely, that a state-owned U.A.E. company purchasing a publicly held British company was a matter of the Bush Administration selling “...Port Security To Highest Foreign Bidder”. Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters baldly stated – and was parroted by Michelle Malkin in the process – that such a transaction represents a “surrender” of our ports to “Arab-based firms”.

If, upon reflection, the worst I am prepared to accuse Duncan Black of is a poor choice of words in his post on Friday (and it is), I cannot pass over the comments and conduct of Senators Schumer, Clinton, Boxer or Santorum without noting that a poor choice of words is most certainly not their primary offense. The same goes with any number of mentioned (and unmentioned) “prominent” bloggers who have contributed nothing to the discussion other than an airing of their own personal manias.

The fact of the matter is this: The government of the United Arab Emirates, as well as the “Arab moderates” we supposedly cherish so, will forever remember the rhetoric of contempt and distrust as well as the legislation introduced to harm and punish them.

And given the circumstances, I would be the last person on Earth to criticize them for that.

Comments

[eponymous]

Dennis,

You might want to explore looking into the Chinese firm COSCO, which - if I understand things correctly - is in charge of port operations along the west coast of US (speficially Long Beach/LA).

If Atrios (and others) have an issue regarding state-owned companies conducting port operations in the US, then COSCO needs to come under closer scrutiny. At least, to be consistent in their argument vis-a-vis "port security".

[Cameron]

Hey, Congress is humiliating friendly Moslems here so we don't have to humiliate them over there...or something...

[elemental]

I'm pretty sure Arab businessmen and the Emirates are pretty well aware of the stigmatism they face from us.

I know Senator would ever dare state it, but if the ports were actually operated by Dubai they would probably be A LOT safer.

Take a look at how westernized Dubai is, its proximity to people who hate westernization and then consider the security they must require to ensure the safety of the European and Asian businesspeople and vacationers.

[wxjames]

This debate is spiraling out of control.
When a ship arrives at say the mouth of the Hudson River, the Coast Guard can board the ship and search it if they want. At that point, the Coast Guard can refuse to allow the ship into port. The ship's captain contacts the Harbor Master and informs him that they are waiting for a birth at such-and-such. The Harbor Master sends a pilot to pilot the ship into port, and tug boats to manuver the ship in the narrow waters. The pilot leaves the ship when it is tied to the dock. All of this activity occurs under the Port Authority. A facility, in this case owned by Dubai, unloads and loads the ship, in this case a container ship. The ship then requests a pilot and tug boats to return to open waters. The Harbor Master schedules the departure and provides the necessary personel and equipment to see the ship out into open water. Any container taken from the ship can and will be scanned for radiation, living occupants, explosives, drugs, and other contraband before it is allowed to leave the container properties.
The container company, in this case from Dubai, has nothing to do with security as I understand harbor activity. Rather, this is like Fed Ex hiring a Mexican company to sort packages at their Tennessee hub facility.
Both left and right wingers are jumpimg ugly over nothing in this case. Must be a slow month.

[LouMinatti]

Duncan is full of shite. The only reason he objects to this is because it's a tool against Bush. Period. It's simply a handy political weapon for him. If Duncan were sincere, he would have also objected to Clinton selling vital military secrets to the Chinese Communist government.

I'm not going to wade through years of archives, but I'll wager that Duncan, if he ever commented on that Clinton fiasco, said one negative thing about it.

[Rupert]

The fact of the matter is this: The government of the United Arab Emirates, as well as the “Arab moderates” we supposedly cherish so, will forever remember the rhetoric of contempt and distrust as well as the legislation introduced to harm and punish them.

And?!. You alluded to this in your previous post and it strikes me as the same line of argumentation that the Danish cartoons portraying Muhammed as violent so insulted Muslims worldwide that they turned to .... violence. At least that's the implication your stating as far as I can tell.

I don't have enough of the whole story to draw a definitive enough conclusion about the port deal, but to say that:

a.) This whole issue isn't a concern because no one was aware of it before( as in your previous post )

AND

b.) This whole issue *is* a concern because a the Arab and by extension the Muslim world will be offended( and therefore turn to terrorism )

strikes me as to be as poor an argument and any other.

There are legitimate concerns with an majority Muslim country overseeing the operations of US ports, no matter how tangental the connection. Read any opinon polls lately?

[Rupert]

In fact, that's exactly what your saying. So the educated, moderate Muslim will now turn to terrorism simply because he was insulted? Well, then maybe his beliefs in liberal democracy( which the UAE isn't) was rather shallow to begin with, eh?:

Had anyone involved in this fiasco paused to reflect on their actions, they might have noted the following: Where this "issue" will hurt us is not with the uneducated masses rioting at the instigation of Middle East fascists and their allies, it will hurt us with precisely the portion of the Arab/Muslim population that is most sympathetic to our goals in that part of the world: The educated middle class. This would be the businessmen who manage and work for companies like Dubai Ports World. We are telling those men, in no uncertain terms, that is doesn’t matter what they do, what matters is what they are. For all our posturing about the hypocrisy of Arab/Muslim Moderates failing to stand up to Middle East fascists, the bottom line is that even when these Arab/Muslim Moderates do what we ask – as has the government and the people of the United Arab Emirates – what we reward those efforts with is little more than distrust and contempt. The Dubai Ports World "issue" is a perfect example of such a reward. And that, in the end, will most likely end up costing us more lives.

[sonic]

"There are legitimate concerns with an majority Muslim country overseeing the operations of US ports, no matter how tangental the connection. Read any opinon polls lately?"

Ah opinion polls, always where I turn to when I'm unsure of the facts.

Anyine want to hazard a guess over how many Middle Eastern Oil facilities (including ports) are owned by US firms?

[Cameron]

Rupert,
Who - other than you - has said word one about moderate Moslems in the UAE "becoming violent" over this port issue? What would be your reaction if the US squelched the port deal and demanded leases only go to American companies? Would you find it an acceptable response from UAE to nationalize American holdings there?

[Rupert]

Who - other than you - has said word one about moderate Moslems in the UAE "becoming violent" over this port issue?

Well, Dennis is. At least that's the conclusion I'm drawing, but surely he can answer it for himself. He's either saying that, or he's saying that by being suspicious of Arab owned companies that we are undermining Muslim moderates throughout the Muslim world by playing to the idea that the West is biased against the Islamic world no matter what, even if they play by our rules.

But, given both paragraphs I posted, I can only conclude that he is saying these 'moderates',which Monzoor Ijaz says there is no such thing, will turn to violence.

Ah opinion polls, always where I turn to when I'm unsure of the facts.

Be you unsure of the facts or not, this is truth:

60% of British Muslims want Sharia law in their communities.
20% of British Muslims feel sympathy towards the motive of the July 7th bombers.

I can't speak for American politicians, but it is the actions and thoughts of the Muslim world that drive the bias against them, not xenophobia or racism( a canard if there ever was one )

[Larry Bernard]

Guys you are missing the bigger issue.

By making this a political issue a politician can try to make the "borders safe" while leting in a kajillion illegals.

[FabioC.]

Rupert, I contend that you have your facts wrong. The article you link states clearly that according to the poll results only 40% of the British Muslims would see sharia enacted (yes, that's already too much). But 40% is a minority, while 60% is a majority. The same article also says that 41% of British Muslims do not want sharia.

On the topic: I think that Dennis asks exactly the meaningful questions. Alas, he's largely alone in this.

[dawud]

rupert: can you read simple articles and reduce complex views to inane talking points? Yes, you can.

thanks for pointing the way to MEMRI: I'm sure there's no ideological bias or political axe to grind there: note I'm not saying they make up anything, but fair representation of middle east bigotry would include Israeli anti-Semitism: the Shas and Likudnik versions. Quick: which arab politician said of the Holocaust victims: "They're snakes and vermin. They deserve it for their past-life behaviour." wasn't an arab, but the 'Reb' of the Shas party.

which anti-Semite said: "A million arabs are not worth a jewish fingernail"?... etc, etc, etc... please look up JewsagainstZionism and NetureiKarta for more unpleasant reviews.

As for your asserting, qua Mansoor Ijaz and the Daily Telegraph poll that muslims are 'not moderates' and want Shar'iah, support terrorism, etc: bloody bollocks, if you're an Englishman, you'll get that. Shar'iah has a particularly broad meaning to muslims, as it can be understood broadly as "The Way" and may include a wide variety of understandings of Islamic Law: two mullahs, three opinions, as the appropriated saying goes.

If you wanted to undermine Dennis, you're not doing that. As someone who doesn't want to see Americans and Israelis tortured or killed (or anyone else for that matter, with the exception of criminals and terrorists such as Usamah bL), I might fit the 'moderate muslim' picture. And I can tell you, I'm alienated by the views that groups such as LGF, Malkin, and Coulter propagate.

[dawud]

Fabio - I don't write like Dennis. He writes sarcasm and bitterness like there's a deep pool of rage and bile settled deep within him, which can only be settled by making the PJM folk bleed. And this, strangely enough, draws thousands of readers
to his blog.

On his positive side, ;) he is articulate and funny: and given that he's a CPA, I'm having to re-appraise my general assessment of the humor quotient of accountants. The Economist, on the other hand, manages only a pretty palid dry English wit.
Heh.

[Jane]

Cable news is ratcheting this up shamelessly...last night one reporter claimed that the UAE provided "safe haven" to 9/11 terrorists. Of course cable news can find a terrorist angle in toenail clipping these days. Meanwhile, we all remove our shoes in airport security lines in the interests of "national security" while air AND sea cargo continues to go unexamined and that practice is unreported unless Arab companies are involved.

Regarding state-owned companies, they do serve a dual purpose: public policy and profit. Not many of us in North America seem to have a problem with purchasing consumer goods or gas produced by state-owned companies. And we certainly don't get bent out of shape over heavily state-subsidized food, and if that isn't a form of state ownership (one county in Montana gets over a million bucks of your money per resident) it certainly is undue state influence in the so-called free market.

[DennisThePeasant]

Rupert-

Let me clarify something. What I did not mean to suggest was that the Arabs/Muslims would turn to violence against us. What I was suggesting is that they would cease cooperating and helping us in the war on terror.

Lou-

Strictly partisan games are, for the most part, over here. I realize I could attack Duncan along the lines you've mentioned, but that is not my interest... My interest is in the issue at hand. Besides, Duncan responded politely and in good faith... and is the only blogger I mentioned who has bothered to do so. That should count for something.

[Guesst]

This is worth reading if you haven't already:

http://sea2sea.blogspot.com/2006/02/uae-port-operations-perspectives-and.html

[Rupert]

Let me clarify something. What I did not mean to suggest was that the Arabs/Muslims would turn to violence against us. What I was suggesting is that they would cease cooperating and helping us in the war on terror.

So Dennis, if these moderates suddenly toss the whole war on terror thing out the window because they are treated distrustfully, then perhaps there was never any basis for trust to begin with.

In fact, those unreliable opinion polls have shown exactly that: Muslims in general don't really agree with the war on terror. A high percentage of Muslim minorities in Western countries and majorities in predominantly Muslim countries have sympathy for Al-Qaeda, if not their means.

What your positing is close to bribery. There is precident for having assests that are of interest to national security not being owned by a certain company. Given the broadening understanding by Americans of the Muslim worlds opinions towards them and the recent events of the Cartoon Jihad, in which Muslims worldwide are attempting to impose their orthodoxy on the rest of the world, I don't think it's a stretch to think that it might be a bad idea to have an Arab/Muslim company involved in a daily business that is vital to our security and economic well being.

It may not be accurate or in good taste to hold his view, but I'm finding it harder with every passing day that it might not have some merit. Such are the consequences of religious fanatacism.

[Atrios]

I'm fairly uncomfortable with this issue. The reason it has struck a broader chord is in large part because of racism - eeewww Arabs - but that doesn't change the fact that there is probably a legitimate issue. There are lots of issues which play into negative race politics even though the issues themselves are valid. IF this company were, say, being bought the Norwegian government would anyone have noticed? Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be an issue. And, in any case, "scary arab terrorist" concerns aside the UAE isn't Norway, it's an oligarchy with an abysmal human rights record and some pretty rotten leaders. That's an attack on their ruling elite, by the way, not the people of UAE themselves.

I think Menendez covered the basic issue well:

We wouldn't turn over our customs service or our border patrol to a foreign government," Menendez, a Democrat, said during a news conference. "We shouldn't turn over the ports of the United States, either."

[wxjames]

Digest this:
Dave Sandborg, an executive of Dubai Ports World was nominated for a top position in the Dept of Transportation dealing with all American ports by GWB on Jan 25th.
The purchase of the British cargo company by Dubai Ports World was announced on Feb. 13th.
Sandborg must be confirmed by the senate.
Does Sandborg still work for DPW ? What was/is his connection with the purchase ? What is/will be his connection with DPW if confirmed ?

Curiouser and curiouser.

[DennisThePeasant]

I believe you mean David Sanborn, who was the Sr. V.P. of Overseas Operations of DPW. He was nominated to run the Dept. of Transportation's Maritime Administration. See Part Three for an explanation of what MARAD actually does.

[eponymous]

"And, in any case, 'scary arab terrorist' concerns aside the UAE isn't Norway, it's an oligarchy with an abysmal human rights record and some pretty rotten leaders. That's an attack on their ruling elite, by the way, not the people of UAE themselves."

Atrios,

I would have to see some evidence for your claim regarding UAE. Not saying it's not true, but UAE (and Dubai in particular) is fairly progressive for a Mid-East country.

In any event, your argument could be said of China as well, who, by the way, conducts some port operations activity along the West Coast in the US (via COSCO, it's state-owned shipping company).

[sonic]

"Muslims in general don't really agree with the war on terror"

I've got some breaking news for you mate, neither does most of the worlds population.

[elemental]

Atrios,

I believe you're wrong about the 'horrible' Maktoum regime of the UAE.

While not perfect, like any world leader, they're hardly the cartoonish image of the nasty Arab dictator you seem to be latching onto.

The Maktoums have tried to build Dubai in a western model, with many western principles. They do not perform public beheadings, don't have a record of torture or holding political prisoners.

They are positioning Dubai to NOT be oil dependant and re-invest the wealth they do have in the Dubai infrastructure, building more wealth through banking and industries such as their Aluminum industry.

[Another Bruce]

I don't think that the defense of the United States should be put in the hands of any other entity than the United States government. That doesn't just include the government of the UAE, the government of France, contractors from the UAE, contractors from China, or contractors from the State of Texas. The problem with these entities is that the American citizen does not elect any of them.

As a liberal, I hate the outsourcing of military and security functions (whether it's fair or not, where we see contractors the rest of the world sees mercenaries.) There is no one that will defend their country quite so fiercely as the people that live there and raise families there. And I am talking about defense we have had a strong country for such a long time that we haven't truly had to worry about such a concept, except for a brief and dramatic interlude a little over 4 years ago.

Defense is an elemental thing, best left to the citizens of any particular country. You can't hire Halliburton to cook meals for your troops, because that cook may have to pick up a gun and defend himself and his fellows if the shit hits the fan. If he decides to cut and run because he decides that defending his country isn't in his resume, he endangers his fellow troops and his country.

Patriotism includes trusting in your own countrymen to defend their country. We might want to stop outsourcing every damn thing we believe in so there is something left to defend.